The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[time4u2go]

i guess i'm in the minority on this. The article clearly states that the port authority most certainly did test the substance, so those of you saying that they didn't do so are wrong. Here's the quote:

 

port officials agree that the contraband was tobacco and not an illegal substance. Port canaveral spokeswoman rosalind harvey tells cruise critic that the test, which she also says was witnessed by officers, came up negative.

 

second, i've been reading some of the remarks that these passengers shouldn't have placed the tobacco where they did. Why? It's their stuff, it's not illegal, and they have every right to put the tobacco anywhere they choose to do so. They have every right to put anything they want in their suitcase that isn't a violation of the contract. Tobacco isn't a violation...period. Therefore, it's a non-issue where it was found. They can shove tobacco up their behinds and it's not illegal. All that matters is that these people had a completely legal substance that may, or may not, have been questionable, which they willingly had tested and that test came back negative, per the port authority with witnesses who were officers.

 

Finally, that anyone would be a cheerleader for rci in this is completely mind boggling to me. It's bovine scatology, frankly. This couple did nothing wrong. Nothing. Nada. They had a legal substance which was proven to be legal and they were even willing to throw the substance away. One post even suggested something to the affect that because he had a pipe he might be going to buy weed and therefore shouldn't be allowed to board. Are you freakin' kidding me?! So because someone might do something they should be denied their pre-paid vacation?! Hell...that's all of us. We might drink to much and make an a$$ of ourselves. (we don't drink, but you get the point!) we might meet someone who swings at my husband because he has tatoos. There's a million "might" scenarios but that doesn't give anyone, including the captain, the right to kick a passenger, who has done nothing wrong, off this ship. I'd lay 10 to 1 that most people who agree with these actions are non-smokers and are just jerks enough to allow that to overshadow the wrongfulness of these actions.

 

Once again, these people didn't do anything wrong! Nothing. How can anyone justify rci's actions? I'd sue their butts off and i absolutely think they'll win. At the end of the day, this couple didn't break the contract on any level. And unfortunately for rci, they have witnesses and a test to prove it! The captain doesn't get to determine someone is a "risk" because they smoke tobacco with a pipe. And there's not a law on the planet that says you can't pack your tobacco wherever you darn well want to! I'm sure some of you are going to jump up and down and say the "captain" can do what he wants...unfortunately, you're wrong. If it's legal, within the contract, and not harming nor may harm another passenger, then he's as bound by that contract as the passengers are.

 

Rci will regret this mistake, in my opinion. They'd do much better to just give the people their measly 3000.00 dollars back and offer them a complimentary cruise for their embarrassment, loss of funds, and personal stress for carrying freakin' tobacco on in a hair spray can and being subjected to this crap for doing nothing illegal or wrong! :mad::confused:

 

Rci's already been caught lying so they can claim that they violated guest conduct policy (shame on them!) unfortunately, the pa, witnesses and the test results have shown that they're lying. Here's that quote:

 

"the 'tobacco' was taken by law enforcement to be destroyed," martinez wrote in an e-mail, and, per the line's guest conduct policy, which prohibits "illegal substances" and states that the line can remove passengers who violate the policy, mary and robert were denied boarding.

 

here's what the spokewoman for the pa had to say about that lie:

 

harvey says that cruise line security actually returned the items to robert following the negative test, contradicting rci's claims that they were destroyed.

+1!

[reney313]

Same goes for me. I hope im not one of the "others." All I've done throughout was try to bring some light to the subject based on my field of expertise.

 

But in return, now I'm seeing I have too much time invested, apparently.

 

Why can't we all just agree that we don't know all the facts?

 

I agree with this! I have to admit, I was completely on the original thread's OP's side. Now that these new facts (eg. the hairspray can with a faux bottom) came out, I'm just confused. I knew there was likely more to the story, I just really believed that there wasn't more from her end. Burned again.

 

But then I hear what RC states, which seems to be in direct conflict with what the Port Security states, and I am just really more confused.

 

I'm not worried of this happening to me. But the best thing from both of these posts is learning to take a double look at everything I have packed. Generally I do as living in the midwest, I'm normally always flying (although I have made the 24 hour drive 4 different times to Miami, and not because I had anything to hide from airport security, it was just part of the vacation).

 

In the end, I find I can no longer come up with a theory in my mind. There are just too many. But, I do err on the side of the customer (that is my job at my company) and would like to see their cruise fare refunded. Maybe not an apology or anything else. In the end, they weren't able to cruise. It may have just been pure stupidity on the cruisers part. Might have been miscommunication. Might have been a dry run for something in the future. Who only knows. I certainly do not!

[Heidils]

It was tested.

 

Not illegal.

 

No witch hunt needed.

[Goofyisme]

Husband's actions were a clear case of intent to decieve the port and ship security personel. This in and of itself is enough to deny passage.

 

Wife's actions (at least by ommission) were, in my opinion, a clear intent to decieve the people who read and post on this board. This leads me to distrust in my own mind anything else she said in the other thread and is a good reason for her to not post anything further, lawyer's advice and such not withstanding.

[CruiserChloe]

RCI's already been caught lying so they can claim that they violated Guest Conduct Policy (shame on them!) Unfortunately, the PA, witnesses and the test results have shown that they're lying. Here's that quote:

 

How is it that this is so significant to you, but the girl lying isn't? You are quoting a public relations rep who was not there, yet the girl who had her stuff seized directly lied to all of us on her thread? What baffles me is that you think RCI is so wrong in all this when the party who was kicked off has now proven herself to be a liar. :confused:

 

Plus, did you miss the part where the husband said he did this on purpose because he knew it looked like marijuana?

 

Sorry, but I think the folks who are so quick to blame RCI for this are just as bad, if not worse than the ones who think RCI can do no wrong.

 

The only people with any sense here are the ones who are in the middle and actually realize there is more to this story.

[time4u2go]

Husband's actions were a clear case of intent to decieve the port and ship security personel. This in and of itself is enough to deny passage.

 

 

Kinda like booze smugglers, no?

[LarissaRose]

I guess I'm in the minority on this. The article clearly states that the Port Authority most certainly DID test the substance, so those of you saying that they didn't do so are wrong. Here's the quote:

 

Port officials agree that the contraband was tobacco and not an illegal substance. Port Canaveral spokeswoman Rosalind Harvey tells Cruise Critic that the test, which she also says was witnessed by officers, came up negative.

 

Second, I've been reading some of the remarks that these passengers shouldn't have placed the tobacco where they did. Why? It's their stuff, it's NOT illegal, and they have every right to put the tobacco anywhere they choose to do so. They have every right to put anything they want in their suitcase that isn't a violation of the contract. Tobacco isn't a violation...Period. Therefore, it's a non-issue where it was found. They can shove tobacco up their behinds and it's not illegal. All that matters is that these people had a completely legal substance that may, or may not, have been questionable, which they willingly had tested and that test came back NEGATIVE, per the Port Authority WITH witnesses who were officers.

 

Finally, that anyone would be a cheerleader for RCI in this is completely mind boggling to me. It's bovine scatology, frankly. This couple did nothing wrong. Nothing. Nada. They had a legal substance which was proven to be legal and they were even willing to throw the substance away. One post even suggested something to the affect that because he had a pipe he MIGHT be going to buy weed and therefore shouldn't be allowed to board. Are you freakin' kidding me?! So because someone MIGHT do something they should be denied their pre-paid vacation?! Hell...that's ALL of us. We MIGHT drink to much and make an A$$ of ourselves. (we don't drink, but you get the point!) We MIGHT meet someone who swings at my husband because he has tatoos. There's a million "might" scenarios but that doesn't give anyone, including the Captain, the right to kick a passenger, who has done NOTHING wrong, off this ship. I'd lay 10 to 1 that most people who agree with these actions are non-smokers and are just jerks enough to allow that to overshadow the wrongfulness of these actions.

 

Once again, these people didn't DO anything wrong! Nothing. How can anyone justify RCI's actions? I'd sue their butts off and I absolutely think they'll win. At the end of the day, this couple didn't break the contract on ANY level. And unfortunately for RCI, they have witnesses and a test to prove it! The Captain doesn't get to determine someone is a "risk" because they smoke TOBACCO with a pipe. And there's not a law on the planet that says you can't pack your tobacco wherever you darn well want to! I'm sure some of you are going to jump up and down and say the "Captain" can do what he wants...unfortunately, you're wrong. If it's legal, within the contract, and not harming nor may harm another passenger, then he's as bound by that contract as the passengers are.

 

RCI will regret this mistake, in my opinion. They'd do much better to just give the people their measly 3000.00 dollars back and offer them a complimentary cruise for their embarrassment, loss of funds, and personal stress for carrying freakin' TOBACCO on in a hair spray can and being subjected to this crap for doing nothing illegal or wrong! :mad::confused:

 

RCI's already been caught lying so they can claim that they violated Guest Conduct Policy (shame on them!) Unfortunately, the PA, witnesses and the test results have shown that they're lying. Here's that quote:

 

"The 'tobacco' was taken by law enforcement to be destroyed," Martinez wrote in an e-mail, and, per the line's Guest Conduct Policy, which prohibits "illegal substances" and states that the line can remove passengers who violate the policy, Mary and Robert were denied boarding.

 

Here's what the spokewoman for the PA had to say about that lie:

 

Harvey says that cruise line security actually returned the items to Robert following the negative test, contradicting RCI's claims that they were destroyed.

 

As long as a company isn't discriminating against someone for a protected reason (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc) they can pretty much refuse service to anyone at their discretion, this applies to RCCL as well.

[BecciBoo]

The main reason I was concerned about our cruise was that it looked like some security person was responsible for singling out a couple and causing irreparable harm to them over an assumption. But since the phone call and Cruise Critic's article, evidently I put too much into the OP's account. I do still worry that we might run into that person. I already have issues with TSA and the people they employ and have witnessed stuff in airports. To me, it is concerning, although I don't smuggle anything, But that doesn't make me less afraid that someone like that could cause trouble for us for no good reason over something trivial like a bottle full of different pills or something.

[LarissaRose]

Even though it is within RCCL's "right" to refuse service to anyone at their discretion, I DO think they should refund a cruise to the full extent if the people did not break any of their written policies.

[EVALUATOR]

This would be a cool court case to be a juror on if we were sequestered on a cruise ship to deliberate.

 

The deadlock could go on for months.:cool:

[kaykels]

Amen Kristi! I agree 100% and think the vast majority of RCI cheerleaders are a little nuts. These people didn't do anything wrong or illegal. Yeash, if everybody that had alcohol in their bag was thrown off and not refunded all hell would break loose, and THOSE are the people violating policy.

 

Does anybody know why RCCL said they can't get a refund because the violated the guest policy? HOW ?????

[CruiserChloe]

I agree with this! I have to admit, I was completely on the original thread's OP's side. Now that these new facts (eg. the hairspray can with a faux bottom) came out, I'm just confused. I knew there was likely more to the story, I just really believed that there wasn't more from her end. Burned again.

 

So was I! She was so nice in the way she responded to everyone. I actually felt bad for her. A lot of people were on her side. I'm still not completely on RCI's side, but I can see much clearer now why they made the decision they made.

[jonbgd]

I have met the man and spoken with him but I doubt he'd even remember me like many others who have met him who post here. RCCL is just a company who takes things like this seriously I guess and I am a Diamond member (don't get the impression I have a fat head about that either). Don't ask me, but it did occur. I thought it would interest some, but apparently they are more interested in being nasty. I am quite touchy after all the things that have been said so I am sorry if I accused you of anything.

No apology necessary, I was making sure I hadnt offended you

 

But as you posted on another thread we all need thick skin to post on CC;):D:p

[bigeagle12]

It was tested.

 

Not illegal.

 

No witch hunt needed.

 

One more time .. the test only proved it was not marijuana (contained no THC) .. does not prove whether it was legal or illegal .. inconclusive at best because their tests did not test for other illegal substances.

 

RCI's test supposedly did test positive for some form of illegal substance. Just because police test didn't find THC .. did not rule out other possibilities.

[jonbgd]

Same goes for me. I hope im not one of the "others." All I've done throughout was try to bring some light to the subject based on my field of expertise.

Hey I never knew Id learn so much from a Coastie:eek::D:p

[lidodeckbound]

Ok I am just now stumbling across this particular thread. I read the other one. But I am still not sure what they did wrong. There was NO pot people. So why the issue? Unless they made some crazy scene. And NO I did not read all 50 pages. I don't get it.

[CruiserChloe]

These people didn't do anything wrong or illegal.

 

I can't agree with that. That may not have done anything illegal, but they definitely did something wrong. Otherwise, they would have a head and camera full of cruise memories right now.

[time4u2go]

One more time .. the test only proved it was not marijuana (contained no THC) .. does not prove whether it was legal or illegal .. inconclusive at best because their tests did not test for other illegal substances.

 

RCI's test supposedly did test positive for some form of illegal substance. Just because police test didn't find THC .. did not rule out other possibilities.

 

Really? Where did you hear this? I must have missed it.

[Cruising89143]

Ok I am just now stumbling across this particular thread. I read the other one. But I am still not sure what they did wrong. There was NO pot people. So why the issue? Unless they made some crazy scene. And NO I did not read all 50 pages. I don't get it.

 

 

Then maybe you need to read all fifty pages.:rolleyes: Actually you and a few others.

[Aquahound]

Hey I never knew Id learn so much from a Coastie:eek::D:p

 

You just had to go there, didn't you Doc? ;):D

 

I can't agree with that. That may not have done anything illegal, but they definitely did something wrong. Otherwise, they would have a head and camera full of cruise memories right now.

 

Now this, I agree with 100%.

[Kristi Williamson]

How is it that this is so significant to you, but the girl lying isn't? You are quoting a public relations rep who was not there, yet the girl who had her stuff seized directly lied to all of us on her thread? What baffles me is that you think RCI is so wrong in all this when the party who was kicked off has now proven herself to be a liar. :confused:

 

Plus, did you miss the part where the husband said he did this on purpose because he knew it looked like marijuana?

 

Sorry, but I think the folks who are so quick to blame RCI for this are just as bad, if not worse than the ones who think RCI can do no wrong.

 

The only people with any sense here are the ones who are in the middle and actually realize there is more to this story.

 

Maybe because I don't give a hoot where anyone packs perfectly LEGAL substance. People put jewelry there. Are we to determine that they must be deceiving someone? Perhaps they're jewelry thieves who intend to sneak into your room and replace your real for their faux? It could happen, so why not assume that it will based on your theory? They have every right to place a legal substance anywhere they want. I suppose I think she didn't mention it for two reasons and neither of them are lying:

 

1. People would have done just what you're doing by asking why she put it there. While I tend to think that couple has every right to place a legal substance anywhere they d@mn well please. Period.

 

2. Because it was a bad choice in the hopes of NOT having to deal with the PA for a COMPLETELY legal substance which, yes, he admitted looked illegal. Who wants to deal with that? I don't view that as "hiding" something or being nefarious because whether anyone likes it or not, the tobacco is STILL legal. However, if you roll your cigarettes, you're almost always faced with some idiot who assumes you're a dope head because if it's a baggie you MUST be. Turns out, they weren't dope heads and they just didn't want to deal with the BS. Who can really blame them for that? I suppose I try to see things from the reality of real life, not the Utopia we all wish it was.

 

Again, all these points are a non-issue for me. The people had freakin' tobacco, had a test to PROVE it was tobacco, the SHIP security returned their tobacco to them, and they had every right to re-board that ship and enjoy themselves WITH their perfectly legal tobacco. RCI is wrong.

 

As a side note: That PR rep is on record and therefore she may as well have been there. She is the REPRESENTATIVE of RCI to the press and public and her statements will be allowed in a court of law. By her stating that these people had broken the contract for an ILLEGAL substance, which is a LIE, RCI has sunk themselves.

[bigeagle12]

Really? Where did you hear this? I must have missed it.

 

In the attached CC report .. and confirmed from RCI to BecciBoo via phone several pages ago. And also, explained by Aquahound several pages ago.

[Cruising89143]

Maybe because I don't give a hoot where anyone packs perfectly LEGAL substance. People put jewelry there. Are we to determine that they must be deceiving someone? Perhaps they're jewelry thieves who intend to sneak into your room and replace your real for their faux? It could happen, so why not assume that it will based on your theory? They have every right to place a legal substance anywhere they want. I suppose I think she didn't mention it for two reasons and neither of them are lying:

 

1. People would have done just what you're doing by asking why she put it there. While I tend to think that couple has every right to place a legal substance anywhere they d@mn well please. Period.

 

2. Because it was a bad choice in the hopes of NOT having to deal with the PA for a COMPLETELY legal substance which, yes, he admitted looked illegal. Who wants to deal with that? I don't view that as "hiding" something or being nefarious because whether anyone likes it or not, the tobacco is STILL legal. However, if you roll your cigarettes, you're almost always faced with some idiot who assumes you're a dope head because if it's a baggie you MUST be. Turns out, they weren't dope heads and they just didn't want to deal with the BS. Who can really blame them for that? I suppose I try to see things from the reality of real life, not the Utopia we all wish it was.

 

Again, all these points are a non-issue for me. The people had freakin' tobacco, had a test to PROVE it was tobacco, the SHIP security returned their tobacco to them, and they had every right to re-board that ship and enjoy themselves WITH their perfectly legal tobacco. RCI is wrong.

 

As a side note: That PR rep is on record and therefore she may as well have been there. She is the REPRESENTATIVE of RCI to the press and public and her statements will be allowed in a court of law. By her stating that these people had broken the contract for an ILLEGAL substance, which is a LIE, RCI has sunk themselves.

 

Get real. RCI hasn't sunk anything. Guess you're another one that hasn't read the entire thread. Gotta love the Carnivores.

[CruiserChloe]

Maybe because I don't give a hoot where anyone packs perfectly LEGAL substance.

 

I couldn't read your entire post because I couldn't get past this first sentence. You have no way of knowing they had "perfectly legal substance." No one does.

[time4u2go]

In the attached incident report .. and confirmed from RCI to BecciBoo via phone several pages ago. And also, explained by Aquahound several pages ago.

 

Are you talking about this incident report? I don't see anywhere on it where it says that RCI tested the substance or that such a test was positive.

 

http://c3270052.r52.cf0.rackcdn.com/freedom-incident-report.jpg

 

Or was there another incident report?